Didn't that drive end in a punt? I thought it went missed OPI, penalty, Rodgers sack/fumble and punt.
The Game Goat Thread: Week 13 at Packers
- Thread starter SeoulSoxFan
- Start date
Ha, you're probably right. It was a huge play in my mind at the time because it was such a terrible call. Butterfly effect and all that...
pdaj said:
As much as I wanted it to be, that's never going to be called a TD--he went to ground with defender and ball came out. I was also worried there would have been too much time left on the clock.
I wanted a run on 3rd and 9, because I was of the opinion they would go for it on 4th down.
pdaj said:
I think you're looking at this wrong. The Patriots didn't need a stop. They needed a 3 and out.
You have to prevent them from getting even a single first down. Not just force a punt, but hold an offense that you essentially have not stopped all day from getting 10 yards.
That makes GB a tough match-up for anyone. I had hoped the Patriots would be able to corral the biggest weapons, and force guys like Rodgers (TE), Quarless, Adams and Starks to make the key plays. Unfortunately, they made too many key plays. But the difference, I thought, was Aaron Rodgers mobility. I don't see anyone in the AFC likely to make the play-offs with that skill -- maybe Roethlisberger.Jnai said:
Agreed. They kind of figured it out, and the offense came close to making it pay off. Of course, there was still only one punt in the second half. Three sacks, total, says they had a plan to get to Rodgers, and they were able to get to him, but Rodgers was able to get away, too.BigSoxFan said:
Seeing Rodgers, it makes me understand and appreciate even more that Brady decided HE needed to become more nimble against the pass rush. Rodgers isn't Newton or Kaepernick or Wilson. But he uses his feet just enough to buy time when he needs it and gain yards when he needs them. That Brady has done what he can to incorporate that into his own game (more the former than the latter) is really helpful for the offense.
It was a fun game to watch. I'd have rather the Pats been up, and ended up winning, but I'd been looking forward to this game since Denver. It delivered.
Agreed. And at 6'3, 217 he's plenty big and strong. Cobb is also very talented. It's not just Rodgers.H78 said:
I think the Patriots were actually better off scoring quickly. There was enough time for Rodgers to have a pretty normal drive, and I'd prefer there be a minute left over if he scores to give Brady another shot in the event Rodgers marched them down the field in like 12 seconds again.
ivanvamp said:
I wonder whether the second objective really is correct. I think perhaps you're correct that it was. It sure felt that way watching the game. But if it was the objective, I don't like it. I thought they were going way too leisurely watching the game, and I didn't like it. It felt like they were going "all in" on getting a touchdown in a situation where two field goals could win the game. A perfect 8:40 TD drive would have been awesome, but extremely hard to orchestrate. I would have preferred they try to move much more quickly into FG range. If it didn't work out, fine, punt, try to get a stop, then you're in 4 down mode on getting a TD. If you can get in FG range, relatively quickly, great -- take your shots at scoring, but if it doesn't happen, take the 3 points with 4 or 5 minutes left (or, if you miss the FG, you're still within a TD with time outs).
I understand that "getting into field goal range" is easier said than done. If the McD and the offense believed their best chance of scoring to be a slow, methodical drive, using all the time on the play clock, then fine. If that's what they were doing, you have to do what you think gives you the best shot at getting points. But if they really were trying to manage the clock to control how much time Rodgers would have, I don't like it. They were behind by more than a FG and less than a TD, try to get points as quickly as you can.
GeorgeCostanza said:
It wasn't a catch. After trying to catch with the left hand, the ball bounces around--you can see it's not in possession at this point:
He then tries to secure it with his right hand:
But the ball is never secure and continues twisting:
Then touches the ground without being in his possession:
After that he tries to secure it some more, but it doesn't matter--ball's dead. I don't think he ever clearly secured it after that, he's obscured by Clinton-Dix on both angles I have, but it's a moot point anyway.
It may have been mentioned here and there, but I think the Pats outsmarted themselves on both sides of the ball with using Cannon on offense, and Ryan on defense. It probably wasn't enough to sway the game, but it had an impact.
Other than that, a few small things didn't go the Pats way and they came up a bit short. The 3rd and 2 stop on the Pats first drive, the 3rd and 5 pass to Edelman on the 2nd drive where he gained about 4.5, the refs calling the PI on Lafell then taking it back and switching the play clock from 40 seconds to 25 which in turn delayed the two minute warning, and several other little things added up to a narrow loss.
That said, you have to do the big things well to make the little things matter, and giving up a 40 yard catch and run TD with 20 seconds left in the half on 3rd down is most certainly not doing the big things well.
Other than that, a few small things didn't go the Pats way and they came up a bit short. The 3rd and 2 stop on the Pats first drive, the 3rd and 5 pass to Edelman on the 2nd drive where he gained about 4.5, the refs calling the PI on Lafell then taking it back and switching the play clock from 40 seconds to 25 which in turn delayed the two minute warning, and several other little things added up to a narrow loss.
That said, you have to do the big things well to make the little things matter, and giving up a 40 yard catch and run TD with 20 seconds left in the half on 3rd down is most certainly not doing the big things well.
I don't dislike the idea of trying to burn the clock in theory. In fact, I think trying to score too quickly at the end of the game is a mistake that a lot of coaches make in general, underestimating the amount of win equity given up by conceding a final four-down drive to the opponent. In this case, however, there was simply too much time left on the clock to make killing it feasible. Even if they run on second down, gain a few yards, and then convert third down, you're talking about maybe getting to the two minute warning (and maybe not) with 1st and 10 somewhere inside the 10 yard line and the Packers holding two TOs. They might run once there and make the Packers burn a TO, but they're going to have to take shots at the end zone afterward, so barring crazy circumstances like a new set of downs due to penalty, the best case scenario is going to be the Packers getting the ball back with 1:30-2:00 on the clock and probably at least one TO, which is plenty of time for Rodgers to get into field goal range.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
If you can't kill the clock and are going to have to get a stop anyway, then the best thing to do is simply to maximize your odds of scoring a touchdown. To me, that means not only calling whatever plays accomplish that goal but also playing at the tempo that best suits your offense. I'm not sure we should have sped up the drive and tried to score faster, but it bothered me somewhat that we played at a slower tempo than we had the rest of the game.
I toyed with this thought too, but given GB just needed a field goal there's a good chance they could have just run time down. I don't think this was a situation where the Pats could do that much to manage the clock. Less time better but likely wouldn't matter enough to do anything but maximize the chances of scoring a TD regardless of time left.Ed Hillel said:
I think there's a better argument that SD should have wasted a down with one of those deliberate failed sneaks once they got first and goal at the one with 41 seconds left down 6 yesterday.
dcmissle said:
Did someone ask BB that in his press conference? That'd be gold.
I'm not suggesting it was the wrong call to have Ghost try the FG on the 4th and 18, but was there any case to go for it there?
I know, 18 is an eternity. But perhaps the (long, long) odds of Brady converting that weren't quite as terrible as the (long, long, long) odds of making the FG, and recovering the onside kick/forcing GB into a 3 and out?
Probably not. But for a second I did let a "go for it!" out. I might be an idiot though.
Devizier said:
As other have noted (and I concur), this seemed to be a result of the ridiculous amount of time Rodgers had on many of his dropbacks. An adequate corner becomes decidedly poor when his receiver has extra time and/or the QB doesn't have to rush the throw.
Devizier said:
Completely agree. According to Reiss, the Pats ran 8 plays in which Cannon was in purely as an extra blocker. And I can distinctly recall at least 4 of them in which he looked awful, whiffing on blocks or just being muscled aside.
Devizier said:
I wonder how much of this was due to performing the long snapper role? Specifically if it cost valuable practice time that would have been useful for things like contributing to the pass rush. Or even just forcing him to think about performing two jobs instead of one.
Yes, I liked kicking but its a marginal decision. One thing I didn't think about at the time was the FG unit probably wasn't expecting to kick then ended up running out there to try and kick as quickly as possible to preserve time.8slim said:
dcmissle said:
Those of you agreeing with Eric Wilbur, just kill yourselves now. There's no hope.
PFF concurs, grading Cannon as a -2.8 on just 8 snaps, which is really hard to do. Cannon's been pretty disappointing all year; he was bad at G, hasn't impressed when rotating in at T (which they've now abandoned) and hasn't looked good as an extra blocker. All that's left is for him to allow a FG block or something, or maybe drop a pass as a tackle-eligible.Kull said:
*pictures edited from the quote*SumnerH said:
I don't necessarily disagree, but thought it was interesting in contrast to this play:
[SIZE=13.63636302948px]http://www.gfycat.com/UnawareRareAmazonparrot[/SIZE]
In the latter I suppose you could argue that he controlled the ball and then it touched the ground (which is allowed). Doesn't look like it to me, but unlike the Gronk catch it's not clearly still rotating freely in his hand; he _could_ be controlling it and moving his hand up. But that GIF sure looks like the ball was shifting up and the ground helped him control it, which should make it incompletecmurphycode said:
